Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 9, 2006, 5:32 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 133
Default

Hello.

Can this picture possibly be real?



Keep in mind that the jet must be flying at least 170 miles per hour to stay airborne.

I would think that either the plane or the background would have to have some sign of motion blur for the picture to be real.

Is it possible to take a crystal clear picture of something moving that fast without some part of the picture having motion blur?

My belief is that the picture is just a picture of the jet on the ground barely moving (if at all) and that someone used a computer to remove the landing gear.

Any ideas from the photography experts?

Thanks!
Juggernaut
Juggernaut is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 9, 2006, 6:10 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
k1par's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 608
Default

If it is a fake it is a good one. Even down to the distortion of the taxi line as you look through the cockpit canopy. Can it be real? Yes. I have seen pilots hold within 10 feet of the ground building speed just before doing an unlimited climb. Is this shot a fake? I really can't tell but I do like the shot.
k1par is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2006, 6:20 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 133
Default

Hi,

I am not questioning the jet per say - I am questioning whether or not it is really off the ground.

I think the plane was stationary with the wheels down and that someone just removed the landing gear with a photo-editing program.

That would explain why, as you said the lines can still be seen through the canopy.

I am trying to find out if it is possible to take a picture of something moving at least 170 mph and have NONE of the picture (neither the foreground nor the background) be subject to motion blur.

Thanks for the reply,
Juggernaut
Juggernaut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2006, 6:31 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 398
Default

absolutely agree with juggernaut
blindsight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2006, 7:50 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 157
Default

I would say it is a fake, only because that while either way it is an intriquing shot, I don't see the pilot taking the chance with this jet...it is only worth a few million bucks...and if thy were going to either go that slow, or go that low, they would have the gear down, just in case

Stunt teams (blue angels and thunderbirds, and even our canadian snowbirds usually use the ceiling height, to prevent any kind of accident) I thought it was a 1000 feet but, then again, I swear some of them go lower than that!!



Too much to risk, for this to be real in my opinion

Have a great day!
dashboardgyno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2006, 7:56 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 133
Default

Hi,

Actually I have seen actual video's of pilots flying that low - some of them are just plain nuts - especially when first taking off - they basically just raise the gear without gaining any significant height.

I am really just trying to find out if it is possible to take a picture of that nature - so close to the jet (that is supposed to be flying at least nearly 200 mph) while not having any motion blur at all.

Will a very high shutter speed be able to give those results?

Thanks,
Juggernaut


dashboardgyno wrote:
Quote:
I would say it is a fake, only because that while either way it is an intriquing shot, I don't see the pilot taking the chance with this jet...it is only worth a few million bucks...and if thy were going to either go that slow, or go that low, they would have the gear down, just in case

Stunt teams (blue angels and thunderbirds, and even our canadian snowbirds usually use the ceiling height, to prevent any kind of accident) I thought it was a 1000 feet but, then again, I swear some of them go lower than that!!



Too much to risk, for this to be real in my opinion

Have a great day!
Juggernaut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2006, 8:29 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

What it isn't is a photo of an aircraft taxiing with the gear cloned out. If the right main wasn't in the grass it would be close enough that both people in the cockpit would be looking right. The only reason to be that close would be to make a U-turn and take off the other way, and they wouldn't have to be that close to the edge for that. And it really looks like it would be in the grass.

The shot was taken from another aircraft. It appears to be an overcast day and it is strange that there isn't any motion blur in the background. But with a fast prime you could possibly generate enough shutter speed on a bright hazy day with no definite shadows. With that angle of attack he is going a LOT faster than 170 knots. The Atol missile would probably be parallel to the airflow at cruise, and the plane is going fast enough that the missile has a negative angle of attack.

It looks like the fueling probe is out on the port side. Not sure why he would be making a flyby with it out, but he wouldn't take off with it extended unless it was broken. From the paint jobs I would guess those are the planes the Russians sell rides in. Either that or they are part of some test program. That isn't a combat aircraft though, and if it is one they use to sell rides for a profit they might leave a fueling probe extended rather than down the aircraft to fix it.

If he raised the gear and accelerated to make a vertical climb he is well into the acceleration because of the apparent speed and how much he has drifted off center line. It could be a very low flyby to entertain a paying customer. Hard to know.





slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2006, 10:17 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default

Do a quick units conversion: 170mph is 979.2m/sec, say 1000m/sec. That means the jet would move 1 meter in 1/1000th sec and it obviously didn't. With a shutter speed of 1/10,000 sec (does any camera have that fast a shutter speed?) it would move 10cm - about half the front/back distance of the pilot's head.

However it was done, it is a fake.
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2006, 10:38 PM   #9
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

BillDrew wrote:
Quote:
[snip]
With a shutter speed of 1/10,000 sec (does any camera have that fast a shutter speed?)....
The Olympus E-100RS came to mind:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2001_reviews/e100rs.html

Edit/Added:

If the shot was taken from another plane as Slipe suggested, perhaps the government has more sophisticated cameras than we think (speculation, but you never know).


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2006, 12:08 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 283
Default

Quote:
170mph is 979.2m/sec
No it's not, its 76 m/sec.
David French is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:02 AM.